In the Interest of: A.A.S., a Minor
993 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 9, 2017Background
- DHS filed petitions on Sept. 16, 2016 to involuntarily terminate A.D.T.’s parental rights to two children (born 2012, 2013); termination trial occurred Feb. 21, 2017. Children had been in DHS custody since March 2015 (≈19 months) and were placed with the paternal grandmother (kinship, pre‑adoptive home).
- DHS alleged long‑standing instability: Mother transient/homeless, unstable employment, history of leaving children with others, inconsistent contact and visits, uncompleted service plan objectives (mental‑health/drug treatment, housing, domestic‑violence programming, consistent visitation).
- At trial CUA caseworker testified Mother was minimally compliant: completed parenting class and some workshops but was inconsistent in therapy, missed/failed drug screens (two positive marijuana screens in Feb. 2017; one earlier diluted sample), attended fewer than half of scheduled supervised visits, and lacked stable housing or steady employment.
- Trial court found clear and convincing evidence of grounds under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and that termination would not harm the children under §2511(b); it terminated parental rights and changed goal to adoption on Feb. 21, 2017.
- Mother appealed; appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw. The Superior Court granted counsel’s withdrawal after independent review and affirmed the trial court’s decrees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for termination under §2511(a) (including (1), (2), (5), (8)) | Mother failed to perform parental duties for the required period, could not remedy conditions (housing, mental‑health, substance, visitation), and the children had been in care >12–18 months; clear and convincing proof supports termination. | Mother argued she demonstrated genuine interest and efforts to maintain relationship and complied with some services (e.g., parenting class); termination not supported by clear and convincing evidence. | Court affirmed: record supports termination under §2511(a) (any one subsection sufficient); DHS met clear and convincing standard. |
| Consideration of child’s developmental, physical and emotional needs under §2511(b) (bond analysis) | Termination serves children’s needs — children placed in stable, pre‑adoptive kinship home; Mother’s bond was attenuated; no irreparable harm from termination. | Mother contends court failed to give primary consideration to effect on children and overlooked bond from visits and calls. | Court affirmed: bond was attenuated; social‑worker observations credible; §2511(b) met—termination in best interest. |
| Timeliness/reasonableness of DHS efforts and whether conditions could be remedied within reasonable time | DHS made reasonable reunification efforts; the children had been in care ~19 months and mother failed to remedy conditions despite services. | Mother points to partial compliance and ongoing participation in some services as evidence remediation was possible. | Court held DHS efforts reasonable and conditions persisted beyond a reasonable period; termination under §§2511(a)(5) and (8) proper. |
| Anders counsel withdrawal / appellate review | Counsel complied with Anders/Santiago requirements; independent court review required. | Mother entitled to be informed and allowed to raise additional issues; counsel should withdraw only after compliance. | Superior Court found Anders requirements satisfied, conducted independent review, concluded appeal frivolous, granted withdrawal and affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural requirements when appointed counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (specifies content required in an Anders brief in Pennsylvania)
- In re S.M.B., 856 A.2d 1235 (Pa. Super. 2004) (Anders procedure applicable in termination appeals)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review in parental‑rights termination appeals)
- Matter of Adoption of Charles E.D.M., II, 708 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1998) (three‑part inquiry for §2511(a)(1): parent’s explanation, post‑abandonment contact, effect of termination under §2511(b))
- In re Adoption of K.T., 938 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2009) (§2511(a)(8) focuses on present persistence of conditions and best interest of the child)